STATE BANK OF INDIA and Others vs MS SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED AND ORS on 20 August 2026

**FINAL ORDER**

1. This original application has been filed by the Applicant Banks no. 1 to 9 i.e. State Bank of India, State Bank of Hyderabad, State Bank of Patiala, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Travancore, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Corporation Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank on 30.03.2017, through Sh. Sanjay Rai, Assistant General Manager / Principal Officer; Sh. Satyajit Patra, Chief Manger / Principal Officer; Sh. Navin Chander Mittal, Assistant General Manager / Principal Officer; Sh. Shyam Kumar Jeph, Assistant General Manager / Principal Officer; Sh. Priyankesh Sinha, Chief Manager / Principal Officer; Sh. Asok Kumar, Assistant General Manager / Principal Officer; Sh. Bobby Tanwar, Assistant General Manager / Principal Officer; Sh. Jagadeesh Prasad, Chief Manager / Principal Officer and Sh. Vinay Kumar, Chief Manager / Principal Officer, being the authorized officers of the Applicant Banks no. 1 to 9 respectively, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the Defendants No. 1 to 5 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 402,12,11,543.26 (Rupees Four Hundred Two Crore Twelve Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three and Paise Twenty Six only) as per following table :-

<thead> <tr> <th>Applicant Banks</th> <th>Amount Due<br/>(in Rupees)</th> <th>Rate of<br/>Pendentelite<br/>and future<br/>interest</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 1 /<br/>State Bank of India<br/>(SBI)</td> <td>158,40,79,450.55</td> <td>10.95% p.a.<br/>with monthly<br/>rests</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 2 /<br/>State Bank of<br/>Hyderabad (SBH)</td> <td>64,64,45,975.04</td> <td>11.85% p.a.<br/>with monthly<br/>rests</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 3 /<br/>State Bank of Patiala<br/>(SBP)</td> <td>30,11,71,918.67</td> <td>11.85% p.a.<br/>with monthly<br/>rests</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 4 /<br/>State Bank of Bikaner<br/>&amp; Jaipur (SBBJ)</td> <td>20,81,41,926.00</td> <td>10.95% p.a.<br/>with monthly<br/>rests</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 5 /<br/>State Bank of Mysore<br/>(SBM)</td> <td>36,29,00,374.00</td> <td>11.75% p.a.<br/>with monthly<br/>rests</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 6 /<br/>State Bank of<br/>Travancore (SBT)</td> <td>14,11,38,277.00</td> <td>11.70% p.a.<br/>with monthly<br/>rests</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 7 /<br/>Oriental Bank of<br/>Commerce (OBC)</td> <td>21,96,42,594.00</td> <td>12.20% p.a.<br/>with monthly<br/>rests</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 8 /<br/>Corporation Bank</td> <td>48,30,41,361.00</td> <td>11.35% p.a.<br/>with monthly<br/>rests</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 9 /<br/>Lakshmi Vilas Bank<br/>(LVS)</td> <td>7,46,49,667.00</td> <td>11.40% p.a.<br/>with monthly<br/>rests</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

together with pendentelite and future interest (as mentioned in above table) till the date of actual realization, costs and charges and other relief(s).

1.2 It is pertinent to note here that this OA bearing no. 513/2017 was originally filed before Ld. DRT-II, Delhi, however, in pursuance to Gazette Notification No. 4718 (E) dated 04.10.2022 issued by Government of India, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, this case file was transferred by Ld. DRT-II, Delhi to this Tribunal in October 2022 and was numbered at TA-272/2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No. 1, State Bank of India (SBI) is a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 which can sue and can be sued in its own name.

It is further stated that the Applicant No. 1 is filing the present OA through Sh. Sanjay Rai, presently the Assistant General Manager and Principal Officer of the SBI, Stressed Assets Management Branch and is competent to sign, verify and institute the present OA on behalf of Applicant Bank no. 1. He is conversant with the facts of this case and as such in a position to depose about the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated in the OA. It is also stated that Sh. Sanjay Rai is competent to sign and verify all types of pleadings, vakalatnama, affidavits, executions and various other applications and to do all such acts as may be necessary for proper conduct of the legal proceedings filed on behalf of the Applicant Bank in terms of the General Regulations No. 76 and 77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, framed by the Reserve Bank of India while exercising the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, read with Notifications published in the Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 etc.

2.1 It is stated that the Applicant Bank No. 2, State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH) is a body corporate, established under the Hyderabad State Bank Act No. XIX of 1350 fasil, reconstituted under State Bank of Hyderabad Act no. 79 of 1956 and the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act No. 38 of 1959 which can sue and can be sued in its own name.

It is further stated that Sh. Satyajit Patra, presently the Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the SBH and is competent to institute and file the present OA. He is well conversant with the facts of this case and as such in a position to depose about the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated in the OA. It is also stated that Sh. Satyajit Patra is competent to sign and verify all types of pleadings, vakalatnama, affidavits, executions and various other applications and to do all such acts as may be necessary for proper conduct of the legal proceedings filed on behalf of the Applicant Bank in terms of the General Regulations 55 and 56 of Subsidiary Banks General Regulations, framed by the State Bank of India under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, with the previous sanction / approval of the Reserve Bank of India, read with the Notifications published in the Gazette of India dated 07.06.1986.

2.2 It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank No. 3, State Bank of Patiala (SBP) is a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 which can sue and can be sued in its own name.

It is further stated that Sh. Navin Chander Mittal, presently the Assistant General Manager and Principal Officer of the SBP and is competent to institute and file the present OA. He is well conversant with the facts of this case and as such in a position to depose about the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated in the OA. It is also stated that Sh. Navin Chander Mittal is competent to sign and verify all types of pleadings, vakalatnama, affidavits, executions and various other applications and to do all such acts as may be necessary for proper conduct of the legal proceedings filed on behalf of the Applicant Bank in terms of the General Regulations 55 and 56 of Subsidiary Banks General Regulations, framed by the State Bank of India under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, with the previous sanction / approval of the Reserve Bank of India, read with the Notifications published in the Gazette of India dated 07.06.1986.

2.3 It is also stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank No. 4, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (SBBJ) is a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 which can sue and can be sued in its own name.

It is further stated that Sh. Shyam Kumar Jeph, presently the Assistant General Manager and Principal Officer of the 

SBBJ and is competent to institute and file the present OA. He is well conversant with the facts of this case and as such in a position to depose about the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated in the OA. It is also stated that Sh. Navin Chander Mittal is competent to sign and verify all types of pleadings, vakalatnama, affidavits, executions and various other applications and to do all such acts as may be necessary for proper conduct of the legal proceedings filed on behalf of the Applicant Bank in terms of the General Regulations 55 and 56 of Subsidiary Banks General Regulations, framed by the State Bank of India under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, with the previous sanction / approval of the Reserve Bank of India, read with the Notifications published in the Gazette of India dated 29.05.2000.

2.4 It is also stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank No. 5, State Bank of Mysore (SBM) is a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 which can sue and can be sued in its own name.

It is further stated that Sh. Priyankesh Singh, presently the Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the SBM and is competent to institute and file the present OA. He is well conversant with the facts of this case and as such in a position to depose about the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated in the OA. It is also stated that Sh. Priyankesh Sinha is competent to sign and verify all types of pleadings, vakalatnama, affidavits, executions and various other applications and to do all such acts as may be necessary for proper conduct of the legal proceedings filed on behalf of the Applicant Bank in terms of the General Regulations 55 and 56 of Subsidiary Banks General Regulations, framed by the State Bank of India under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, with the previous sanction / approval of the Reserve Bank of India, read with the Notifications published in the Gazette of India dated 07.06.1986.

2.5 It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank No. 6, State Bank of Travancore (SBT) is a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 which can sue and can be sued in its own name.

It is further stated that Sh. Ashok Kumar S, presently the Assistant General Manager and Principal Officer of the SBT and is competent to institute and file the present OA. He is well conversant with the facts of this case and as such in a position to depose about the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated in the OA. It is also stated that Sh. Ashok Kumar S. is competent to sign and verify all types of pleadings, vakalatnama, affidavits, executions and various other applications and to do all such acts as may be necessary for proper conduct of the legal proceedings filed on behalf of the Applicant Bank in terms of the General Regulations 55 and 56 of Subsidiary Banks General Regulations, framed by the State Bank of India under Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, with the previous sanction / approval of the Reserve Bank of India, read with the Notifications published in the Gazette of India dated 07.06.1986.

2.6 It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank No. 7, Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) is a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (No. 40 of 1980) which can sue and can be sued in its own name.

It is further stated that this OA is being filed by Sh. Bobby Tanwar, Assistant General Manager and holder of Power of Attorney of the Applicant Bank. He is the Principal Officer and is authorized to do all acts that are necessary for doing the same and is competent to engage counsel and to take all the steps to conduct the case.

2.7 It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank No. 8, Corporation Bank, is a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (No. 40 of 1980) which can sue and can be sued in its own name.

It is further stated that this OA is being filed by the Applicant Bank through Sh. Jagadeesh Prasad, Chief Manager and holder of Power of Attorney of the Applicant Bank. He is the Principal Officer and is authorized to do all acts that are necessary for doing the same and is competent to engage counsel and to take all the steps to conduct the case.

2.8 It is stated in the OA that the Applicant Bank No. 9, Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB) is a Banking Company registered under the meaning of the Companies Act, 1913 and within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which can sue and can be sued in its own name.

It is further stated that this OA is being filed by the Applicant Bank through Sh. Vinay Kumar, Chief Manager and holder of Power of Attorney of the Applicant Bank. He is the Principal Officer and is authorized to do all acts that are necessary for doing the same and is competent to engage counsel and to take all the steps to conduct the case.

2.9 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no.1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of buying, selling, exporting, importing, distributing, stocking, procurement, processing, storing, finishing, dealing with wheat, rice and other commodities.

It is also stated that Defendant no. 1 has availed various credit facilities including Working Capital Limits from the Applicant Banks from time to time. It is further stated that the Defendant no. 1 is a Borrower and the Defendants no. 2 to 5 are the guarantors and mortgagors.

2.10 At the request of the Defendants, the Applicant No. 1 examined the request of the Defendant no. 1 for the Corporate Loan. The Defendant no. 1 requested the Applicant no. 1 Bank that it requires the Corporate Loan of Rs. 500.0 Crore and the Applicant Bank shown its inability to make available the loan to such extent. The Defendants assured the Applicant No. 1 Bank that it will arrange the sanction and grant of the corporate loan of Rs. 500.0 Crore from the Banks who had sanctioned the working capital limits and in case of need, the Defendant no. 1 will rope in the new lenders.

At the request of the Defendant no. 1, the Applicant Bank assessed the corporate loan requirement of the Defendant no. 1 at Rs. 500.0 Crore and agreed to sanction and grant the corporate loan to the extent of Rs. 141.0 Crore and the remaining amount was to be arranged from the other lenders, existing as well as the new lenders, In total, the Applicants no. 1 to 9 sanctioned and granted the corporate loan of Rs. 377.0 Crore to the Defendant no. 1 as detailed as under:-

<thead> <tr> <th>Applicant Bank</th> <th>Loan sanctioned (in rupees)</th> <th>Sanction Letter dated</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Applicant no. 1 / SBI</td> <td>141.0 Crore</td> <td>14.07.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant no. 2 / SBH</td> <td>60.0 Crore</td> <td>07.07.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant no. 3 / SBP</td> <td>40.0 Crore</td> <td>25.05.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant no. 4 / SBBJ</td> <td>21.0 Crore</td> <td>13.05.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant no. 5 / SBM</td> <td>32.0 Crore</td> <td>27.10.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant no. 6 / SBT</td> <td>12.0 Crore</td> <td>13.07.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant no. 7 / OBC</td> <td>20.0 Crore</td> <td>03.07.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant no. 8 / Corp. Bank</td> <td>44.0 Crore</td> <td>23.09.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant no. 9 / LVB</td> <td>7.0 Crore</td> <td>07.10.2015</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>Total</b></td> <td><b>377.0 Crore</b></td> <td></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

**Loan sanctioned by Applicants no. 1, 2, 3 & 7**

2.11 It is stated in the OA that the Applicants no. 1, 2, 3 & 7 sanctioned the corporate loan of Rs. 261.0 Crore, as detailed hereinabove. The Board of Directors of the Defendant no.1 in the meeting on 10.08.2015 resolved to avail the corporate loan of Rs. 261.0 Crore from the Applicants No. 1, 2, 3 & 7 and further resolve to execute the necessary loan / security documents and to create securities in favour of the Applicants no. 1, 2, 3 & 7. As per the sanction, the Defendant no. 1 has to open a Trust & Retention Account (TRA) with the Applicant No. 1 Bank.

The Defendant no. 1 has to deposit its entire sale proceeds, cash sale proceeds, infusion of funds, realization of any sale of fixed assets or the money received from any other source in the TRA Account. In case the company had received the payment in any other account, the Defendant no. 1 has to transfer the same to the TRA account. The said funds were to be used to the material suppliers, in accordance with the decision of the lenders.

To secure the due repayment of all the amounts which may become due and payable in the corporate loan among the Defendant no. 1 as the Borrower and Defendants no. 2 to 5 as guarantors executed the following loan / security documents in favour of the Applicants no. 1, 2, 3 & 7:-

- (i) Common Loan Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant no. 1 as the lender and the lead Bank and also in favour of the Applicants no. 2, 3 & 7 [details given in Para 5(M)(i) of the OA];

- (ii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants [details given in Para 5(M)(ii) of the OA];

- (iii) Guarantee Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by Defendant no. 2 [details given in Para 5(M)(iii) of the OA];

- (iv) Guarantee Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by Defendant no. 3 [details given in Para 5(M)(iv) of the OA];

- (v) Guarantee Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by Defendant no. 4 [details given in Para 5(M)(v) of the OA];

- (vi) Guarantee Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by Defendant no. 5 [details given in Para 5(M)(vi) of the OA];

- (vii) Undertaking dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks;

- (viii) Undertaking dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendants no. 2, 3 & 4 in favour of the Applicant Banks;

- (ix) Inter Creditor Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Applicants No. 1, 2, 3 & 7 in favour of the Applicant No. 1 Lead Bank thereby delegating the certain powers to the Applicant no. 1 being the lead Bank;

- (x) Confirmation dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 to the inter creditor agreement;

- (xi) Letter of Authority dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Applicants No. 2, 3 & 7 in favour of the Applicant no. 1 authorizing the Applicant no. 1.

**Loans sanctioned by Applicants no. 4 & 8**

2.12 It is stated in the OA that the Applicant no. 4 sanctioned the corporate loan of Rs. 21.0 Crore and the Applicant no. 8 sanctioned the corporate loans of Rs. 44.0 Crore.

The Board of Directors of the Defendant no.1 in the meeting on 12.10.2015 resolved to avail the corporate loan of Rs. 21.0 Crore from Applicant No. 4 and of Rs. 44.0 Crore from the Applicant no. 8. The Board resolved to execute the necessary loan / security documents and to secure the creditors with the sanction of the corporate loan of the Applicants no. 4 & 8 the amount of the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicants rose from Rs. 261.0 Crore to Rs. 326.0 Crore. The Board of Directors also passed the Resolution u/s 179 of the Companies Act, 2013.

To secure the due and repayment of the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicants no. 4 & 8, the following loan / security documents have been executed :-

- (i) Deed of Accession dated 13.10.2015 and with the execution of this deed of accession, common loan agreement dated 12.08.2015 has been amended to cover the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicants no. 4 & 8, the total loan amount being RS. 326.0 Crore. The repayment schedule for the Applicant No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 was detailed in Schedule – III of this agreement.

- (ii) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 326.0 Crore.

- (iii) Deed of Adherence to the Deed of Hypothecation executed by the Defendant no. 1 being the Borrower. The Applicant no. 1 being the lead bank and the Applicants no. 4 & 8 being the new lenders thereby agreeing to adhere to the Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.08.2015.

- (iv) Guarantee Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by Defendant no. 2 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 [details given in Para 5(N)(iv) of the OA];

- (v) Guarantee Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by Defendant no. 3 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 [details given in Para 5(N)(v) of the OA];

- (vi) Guarantee Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by Defendant no. 4 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 [details given in Para 5(N)(vi) of the OA];

- (vii) Guarantee Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by Defendant no. 5 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 [details given in Para 5(N)(vii) of the OA];

- (viii) Letter of Authority dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Applicants no. 4 & 8 thereby delegating the authorities to the Applicant no. 1 being the lead bank;

- (ix) Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Applicants No. 1, 4 & 8 in supplemental to the Inter Creditor Agreement dated 12.08.2015;

- (x) Confirmation dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 confirming the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 13.10.2015;

- (xi) Deed of Adherence dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Applicants no. 4 & 8 and the Applicant no. 1, thereby agreeing to adhere to the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015;

- (xii) Undertaking cum indemnity dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 326.0 Crore;

- (xiii) Letter of undertaking dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Defendants no. 2 to 4 being the promoters of the Defendant no. 1.

- (xiv) The consent letter dated 13.10.2015 for disclosure executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants.

**Loans sanctioned by Applicants no. 9**

2.13 It is stated in the OA that at the request of the Defendants, the Applicant no. 9 sanctioned the corporate loan of Rs. 7.0 Crore.

The Board of Directors of the Defendant no.1 in the meeting on 12.10.2015 resolved to avail the corporate loan of Rs. 7.0 Crore from Applicant No. 9. The Board resolved to execute the necessary loan / security documents and to secure the creditors with the sanction of the corporate loan of the Applicant no. 9 the amount of the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicants rose from Rs. 326.0 Crore to Rs. 333.0 Crore. The Board of Directors also passed the Resolution on 12.10.2015 u/s 179 of the Companies Act, 2013.

To secure the due and repayment of the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicant no. 9, the following loan / security documents were executed :-

- (i) Deed of Accession dated 09.12.2015 with the execution of this deed of accession, common loan agreement dated 12.08.2015 has been amended to cover the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicant no. 9, the total loan amount being Rs. 333.0 Crore. The repayment schedule for the Applicant No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 was detailed in Schedule – III of this agreement.

- (ii) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 333.0 Crore.

- (iii) Deed of Adherence dated 09.12.2015 to the Deed of Hypothecation executed by the Defendant no. 1 being the Borrower. The Applicant no. 1 being the lead bank and the Applicant no. 9 being the new lenders thereby agreeing to adhere to the Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.08.2015.

- (iv) Guarantee Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 2 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9 [details given in Para 5(O)(iv) of the OA];

- (v) Guarantee Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 3 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9 [details given in Para 5(O)(v) of the OA];

- (vi) Guarantee Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 4 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9 [details given in Para 5(O)(vi) of the OA];

- (vii) Guarantee Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 5 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9 [details given in Para 5(O)(vii) of the OA];

- (viii) Letter of Authority dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Applicant no. 9 thereby delegating the authorities to the Applicant no. 1 being the lead bank;

- (ix) Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Applicants No. 1 & 9 in supplemental to the Inter Creditor Agreement dated 12.08.2015;

- (x) Confirmation dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 confirming the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 13.10.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 09.12.2015;

- (xi) Deed of Adherence dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Applicant no. 9 and the Applicant no. 1, thereby agreeing to adhere to the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015 and Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 13.10.2015;

- (xii) Undertaking cum indemnity dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 333.0 Crore;

- (xiii) Letter of undertaking dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Defendants no. 2 to 4 being the promoters of the Defendant no. 1.

- (xiv) The consent letter dated 09.12.2015 for disclosure executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants.

**Loans sanctioned by Applicants no. 5(SBM) & 6(SBT)**

2.14 It is stated in the OA that the Applicants no. 5(SBM) & 6(SBT) sanctioned the corporate loan of Rs. 32.0 Crore & Rs. 12.0 Crore respectively.

The Board of Directors of the Defendant no.1 in the meeting on 16.01.2016 resolved to avail the corporate loan of Rs. 44.0 Crore from Applicants No. 5 & 6. The Board resolved to execute the necessary loan / security documents and to secure the creditors with the sanction of the corporate 

loan of the Applicants no. 5 & 6 and the amount of the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicants rose from Rs. 333.0 Crore to Rs. 377.0 Crore. The Board of Directors also passed the Resolution on 16.01.2016 u/s 179 of the Companies Act, 2013.

To secure the due and repayment of the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicants no. 5 & 6, the following loan / security documents have been executed :-

- (i) Deed of Accession dated 18.01.2016 and with the execution of this deed of accession, common loan agreement dated 12.08.2015 has been amended to cover the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicants no. 5 & 6, the total loan amount being Rs. 377.0 Crore. The repayment schedule for the Applicant No. 1 to 9 was detailed in Schedule – III of this agreement.

- (ii) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants no. 1 to 9 for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 377.0 Crore.

- (iii) Deed of Adherence dated 18.01.2016 to the Deed of Hypothecation executed by the Defendant no. 1 being the Borrower. The Applicant no. 1 being the lead bank and the Applicants no. 5 & 6 being the new lenders thereby agreeing to adhere to the Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.08.2015.

- (iv) Guarantee Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 2 in favour of Applicants no. 1 to 9 [details given in Para 5(P)(iv) of the OA];

- (v) Guarantee Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 3 in favour of Applicants no. 1 to 9 [details given in Para 5(P)(v) of the OA];

- (vi) Guarantee Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 4 in favour of Applicants no. 1 to 9 [details given in Para 5(P)(vi) of the OA];

- (vii) Guarantee Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 5 in favour of Applicants no. 1 to 9 [details given in Para 5(P)(vii) of the OA];

- (viii) Letter of Authority dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Applicants no. 5 & 6 thereby delegating the authorities to the Applicant no. 1 being the lead bank;

- (ix) Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Applicants No. 1, 5 & 6 in supplemental to the Inter Creditor Agreement dated 12.08.2015;

- (x) Confirmation dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendant no. 1 confirming the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 13.10.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 09.12.2015;

- (xi) Deed of Adherence dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Applicants no. 5 & 6 and the Applicant no. 1, thereby agreeing to adhere to the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015, Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 13.10.2015 and Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 09.12.2015; A small green rectangular stamp or mark with a handwritten symbol next to it.

- (xii) Undertaking cum indemnity dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 377.0 Crore;

- (xiii) Letter of undertaking dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendants no. 2 to 4 being the promoters of the Defendant no. 1.

- (xiv) The consent letter dated 18.01.2016 for disclosure executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants;

- (xv) Undertaking dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks.

2.15 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 availed and enjoyed the above said Corporate Loan of Rs. 377.0 Crore sanctioned and granted by the Applicant Banks in terms of the loan / security documents executed on 12.08.2015, 13.10.2015, 09.12.2015 and 18.01.2016. The details of rate of interest agreed between the Applicant Banks and the Defendant no. 1, for the corporate loan granted by the Applicants Banks, at the time of documentation have been given in Para 5® of the OA.

It is further stated in the OA that all of the equipments of the Snacks Divisions (Hardwar Plant); Corn Flakes line, Chocos Line, Chipstick Line and Utility are exclusively charged as security for the due repayment of the amounts which may become due and payable by the Defendants to the Applicant Banks. Moreover, the entire current assets, stocks whether raw, finished or semi-finished, book-debts, monies receivables, movable machineries and other assets which are charged by the Defendant no. 1 to the Banks to secure the working capital limits are also charged on pari passu basis for the amount payable under the Corporate Loan subject matter to the present OA.

It is also stated in the OA that to further secure the due repayment of all the amounts which may become due and payable in the Corporate Loan Accounts opened by the Applicant Banks in the name of the Defendant no. 1, the Defendants have mortgaged the below mentioned properties by way of deposit of title deeds with the Applicant no. 1 Bank, acting on its own behalf and on behalf of the other Applicant Banks:-

- (i) Defendant no. 1 is the owner of the property with super structure constructed thereon and the plant and machinery installed thereat, bearing Industrial Plot NO. 25 measuring 1210 sq. yds. at Small Scale Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, G.T. Karnal Road, Opp. Jahangir Puri, Delhi – 110033.

Defendant no. 2 mortgaged this property with the deposit of the original title deeds with the Applicant no. 1 on 22.08.2015 to secure the Corporate Loan to the extent of Rs. 500.0 Crore [details of mortgage have been given in Para 5(T)(i) of the OA]

- (ii) Defendant no. 5 is the owner of the property with super structure constructed thereon, total measuring 416-8 bighas comprised in Khata Khatoni No. 207/257 & 258, Khasra No. 105.578/320 min, Kitas 2 situated at Mouja Ogil, Hadbast 140, Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Simour (H.P.).

Defendant no. 5 mortgaged this property with the deposit of the original title deeds with the Applicant no. 1 on 04.08.2015 and 12.08.2015.

[details of mortgage have been given in Para 5(T)(ii) of the OA]

- (iii) Defendant no. 1 is the owner of the commercial flats bearing no. 1101 to 1103 & 1201-1202 in the Commercial Complex known as Pearls Business Part, Plot No. D-7, NSP Pitampura, New Delhi.

The Defendant no. 1 delivered the original documents to the Applicant no. 1 Bank and has thus created the charge in favour of the Bank.

[details of mortgage have been given in Para 5(T)(iii) of the OA]

- (iv) Defendant no. 2 is the owner of the property with super structure constructed thereon and the plant and machinery installed thereat, bearing Industrial Plot No. 33 measuring 1815 sq. yds. at Small Scale Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi.

Defendant no. 2 mortgaged this property with the deposit of the original title deeds with the Applicant no. 1 on 16.12.2009, 25.03.2010, 13.01.2011, 16.06.2011, 08.11.2012 and 28.01.2014.

[details of mortgage have been given in Para 5(T)(iii) of the OA]

2.16 It is stated in the OA that the Defendant no. 1 has been availing the Working Capital Facilities viz. Cash Credit Facility, Letter of Credit Facility, Bank Guarantee Facility, EPC, Forward Contracts Limits etc. from the Applicant Banks and few other Lenders. The accounts of the Defendant no. 1 with all the Working Capital Lenders has slipped to NPA and a Suit for recovery u/s 19 of RDB Act 1993 has already been filed for the recovery of Rs. 2767,48,39,027.96

2.17 It is further stated in the OA that the Applicant Banks has opened in its books the Corporate Loan account in their books in the name of the Defendant no. 1 [details of the accounts and amount payable as on date of filing of the Suit have been given in Para 5(V) of the OA].

2.18 It is also stated in the OA that the Corporate Loan was repayable in the 32 quarterly instalments and the first instalment was payable from the 9^th fiscal quarter from the date of initial disbursement. The interest was payable on the last date of each month falling after the date of initial disbursement by the Lenders / Applicants. The Defendant no. 1 was under the obligation to regularly pay the interest. In the event of failure at the part of Defendant to pay the interest and the Defendants committing any of the other defaults as detailed in Article VII of the Loan Agreement, the Applicants had the right to recall the entire loan and the entire loan become due and payable on such call from the Applicant Banks. The Applicant Banks have issued the Demand Notice / Recall Notice as detailed hereinbelow which were duly received by the Defendants:-

- (i) Legal Notice dated 15.11.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 1 / SBI;

- (ii) Legal Notice dated 16.11.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 2 / SBH;

- (iii) Legal Notice dated 02.11.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 3 / SBP;

- (iv) Legal Notice dated 28.09.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 4 / SBBJ;

- (v) Legal Notice dated 13.10.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 5 / SBM;

- (vi) Legal Notice dated 01.12.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 6 / SBT;

- (vii) Legal Notice dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 7 / OBC;

- (viii) Legal Notice dated 25.05.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 8 / Corp. Bank;

- (ix) Legal Notice dated 07.11.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 9 / LVB.

2.19 It is stated in the OA that the Defendants miserably failed to pay the dues towards the Applicant Banks and also to remove the other events of default as mentioned in the loan agreement. The working capital limits availed by the Defendant no. 1 from the Applicant Banks and other Banks also became irregular and subsequently was classified as NPA. Therefore, as per the RBI norms the Corporate Loan Account of the Applicant Banks are also classified as NPA.

2.20 It is also stated in the OA that some of the Applicant Banks initiated the action under the SARFAESI Act against the secured assets, however, till date have not realized any amount out of the same.

2.21 It is further stated in the OA that the Defendants from time to time has admitted and acknowledged the liabilities towards the Applicant Bank. Defendant no. 1 has admitted and acknowledged the liability towards the Applicant Banks in the Annual Balance Sheets as well.

2.22 It is stated in the OA that since the Defendants no. 1 to 5 failed to adhere to maintain financial discipline, thus, the Applicant Banks have been compelled to file this Application before this Tribunal.

3. Notices of this O.A. were issued to the Defendants, and Defendants no. 1 to 5 appeared through their counsel.

3.1 It is matter of record that Defendants no. 2 to 5 filed their common WS.

3.2 So far as, Defendants no. 1 is concerned, it did not chose to file any WS.

4. Defendants no. 2 to 5 have raised following main objections in their WS:-

(i) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have raised an objection that this OA is legally not maintainable for the specific reason that pursuant to the CAP, which were sanctioned by the Applicant Banks, the Applicant Banks were required to discharge their obligation and it is for the purpose of disbursing the total CAP

package for its compliance amounting to Rs. 500.0 Crore which the Applicant Banks defaulted in disbursement of the same and because of which Defendant no. 1 company was unable to do its business operation and activities and thus the documents alleged to have been executed pursuant to the CAP package, does not come into effect and have become non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, the OA is liable to be rejected.

- (ii) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 2 to 5 is that the documents referred to in the OA have not been filed and the documents so served are also incomplete. It is stated in the WS that it is well settled law that while filing an OA all the documents referred to or relied upon along with complete statement of account are required to be filed with the OA. It is a mandatory requirement which has not been fulfilled and as such the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

- (iii) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have also raised an objection that it is known fact that the Applicant Bank / FI generally obtain blank documents from the borrowers, those are later on filled up without the consent or knowledge of the borrower, the same is the position in the instant case also. The documents have been filled up later on, thus making material alterations in the documents. Hence, these documents are void ab initio in the eyes of law.

- (iv) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have also taken a plea that the Applicant Bank has charged from the Defendants illegal and excessive rate of interest in violation of RBI guidelines. Moreover, the Applicant Bank has never informed the Defendants with regard to the rates of interest as the Defendants had signed on the blank documents which in fact will not have any bearing on the case. Furthermore, correct and complete statement of account of all the accounts of the principal borrower has not been filed. It is also stated that the Statement of Accounts has not been certified in accordance with the relevant provisions under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act. It is also stated that the interest charged by the applicant bank is totally against the contractual rate of interest. They have also filed the chart of unauthorized debits with the WS.

- (v) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have raised an objection that the OA is barred by Rule 10 of the DRT(Procedure) Rules 1993. It is stated in the WS that applicant banks have themselves admitted the different alleged loans were granted at different point of time and as such the different causes of actions on different alleged loans have arisen.

- (vi) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 2 to 5 is that the Applicant Bank nos. 6 and 8 does not have any territorial jurisdiction to file the present OA.

- (vii) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have further raised an objection that this OA has not been signed by each 

of the Applicant Banks independently and individually, therefore, this OA is liable to be rejected.

- (viii) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 2 to 5 is that this OA filed by the Applicant Banks is barred by limitation.

- (ix) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have also taken a plea that this OA has not been filed through authorized officers of the Applicant Banks.

- (x) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have raised an objection that there has been inordinate delay on the part of the applicant banks to sanction and disburse the amount and rather the applicant banks have utilized the amount towards the service of interest towards the discounting of bills, towards processing charges, devolvement of the LC payment including the adjustment in the PCFC Account, without the knowledge and consent of the Defendants and thus a total sum of Rs. 241.41 crore has been utilized by the applicant banks and the funds have not been made availed by the applicant banks to the defendant no. 1 company. Further more, these defendants have also denied creation of mortgage over their respective properties. They have stated in the WS that the Applicant Banks and other member banks have not sanctioned and disbursed Rs. 123.0 crore facilities aggregating to Rs. 500.0 crore, therefore, there is no continuation of contract, which entitles the applicant banks to claim that the defendants had

signed and executed to create equitable mortgage over their respective properties.

In the light of above, it has been prayed to dismiss the OA.

5. Rejoinder to the WS of Defendants no. 2 to 5 has also been filed by the Applicant Bank denying the allegations levelled against it and reiterating the averments made in the OA.

6. To prove its case, the Applicant Bank / SBI leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Sh. Padam Kant, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank. It is matter of record that SBI is the Leader of the Consortium of Bank and Applicant no. 1 / SBI, being the leader of the Consortium of Banks, is having the loan / security documents, in its possession. Hence, the documents filed / relied by the Applicant no. 1 Bank are also considered for other Applicant Banks as well.

6.1 Sh. Padam Kant, Officer of Applicant no. 1 Bank / SBI has placed reliance upon the documents filed by the Applicant Banks which includes:-

- (i) Board Resolution dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Board of Directors of the Defendant no. 1 wherein it resolved to avail the corporate loan of Rs. 261.0 Crore from the Applicants No. 1, 2, 3 & 7 (Ex. AW-1/1);

- (ii) Common Loan Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant no. 1 as the lender and the lead Bank and also in favour of the Applicants no. 2, 3 & 7 (Ex. AW-1/2);

- (iii) Deed of Hypothecation dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants (Ex. AW-1/3);

- (iv) Guarantee Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by Defendant no. 2 (Ex. AW-1/4);

- (v) Guarantee Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by Defendant no. 3 (Ex. AW-1/5);

- (vi) Guarantee Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by Defendant no. 4 (Ex. AW-1/6);

- (vii) Guarantee Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by Defendant no. 5 (Ex. AW-1/7);

- (viii) Undertaking dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks (Ex. AW-1/8);

- (ix) Undertaking dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendants no. 2, 3 & 4 in favour of the Applicant Banks (Ex. AW-1/9);

- (x) Inter Creditor Agreement dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Applicants No. 1, 2, 3 & 7 in favour of the Applicant No. 1 Lead Bank (Ex. AW-1/10);

- (xi) Confirmation dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 to the inter creditor agreement (Ex. AW-1/11);

- (xii) Letter of Authority dated 12.08.2015 executed by the Applicants No. 2, 3 & 7 in favour of the Applicant no. 1 authorizing the Applicant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/12);

- (xiii) Board Resolution dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Board of Directors of the Defendant no.1 wherein it resolved to avail the corporate loan of Rs. 21.0

Crore from Applicant No. 4 and of Rs. 44.0 Crore from the Applicant no. 8 (Ex. AW-1/13);

- (xiv) Board Resolution dated 12.10.2015 passed by Defendant no. 1 u/s 179 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Ex. AW-1/14);

- (xv) Deed of Accession dated 13.10.2015 with the execution of this deed of accession, common loan agreement dated 12.08.2015 has been amended to cover the corporate loan, sanctioned by the Applicants no. 4 & 8 (Ex. AW-1/15);

- (xvi) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 326.0 Crore (Ex. AW-1/16);

- (xvii) Deed of Adherence dated 13.10.2015 to the Deed of Hypothecation executed by the Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/17);

- (xviii) Guarantee Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by Defendant no. 2 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 (Ex. AW-1/18);

- (xix) Guarantee Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by Defendant no. 3 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 (Ex. AW-1/19);

- (xx) Guarantee Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by Defendant no. 4 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 (Ex. AW-1/20);

- (xxi) Guarantee Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by Defendant no. 5 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7 & 8 (Ex. AW-1/21);

- (xxii) Letter of Authority dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Applicants no. 4 & 8 thereby delegating the authorities to the Applicant no. 1 being the lead bank (Ex. AW-1/22);

- (xxiii) Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Applicants No. 1, 4 & 8 in supplemental to the Inter Creditor Agreement dated 12.08.2015 (Ex. AW-1/23);

- (xxiv) Confirmation dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 confirming the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 13.10.2015 (Ex. AW-1/24);

- (xxv) Deed of Adherence dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Applicants no. 4 & 8 and the Applicant no. 1, thereby agreeing to adhere to the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015 (Ex. AW-1/25);

- (xxvi) Undertaking cum indemnity dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 326.0 Crore (Ex. AW-1/26);

- (xxvii) Letter of undertaking dated 13.10.2015 executed by the Defendants no. 2 to 4 being the promoters of the Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/27);

- (xxviii) The consent letter dated 13.10.2015 for disclosure executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants (Ex. AW-1/28);

- (xxix) Board Resolution dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Board of Directors of the Defendant no.1 wherein it resolved to avail the corporate loan of Rs. 7.0 Crore from Applicant No. 9 (Ex. AW-1/29);

- (xxx) Board Resolution dated 12.10.2015 passed by Defendant no. 1 u/s 179 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Ex. AW-1/30);

- (xxxii) Deed of Accession dated 09.12.2015 with the execution of this deed of accession, common loan agreement dated 12.08.2015 has been amended to cover the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicant no. 9, the total loan amount being Rs. 333.0 Crore (Ex. AW-1/31);

- (xxxii) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 333.0 Crore (Ex. AW-1/32);

- (xxxiii) Deed of Adherence dated 09.12.2015 to the Deed of Hypothecation executed by the Defendant no. 1 being the Borrower (Ex. AW-1/33);

- (xxxiv) Guarantee Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 2 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9 (Ex. AW-1/34);

- (xxxv) Guarantee Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 3 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9 (Ex. AW-1/35);

- (xxxvi) Guarantee Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 4 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9 (Ex. AW-1/36);

- (xxxvii) Guarantee Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 5 in favour of Applicants no. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 & 9 (Ex. AW-1/37);

- (xxxviii) Letter of Authority dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Applicant no. 9 thereby delegating the 

authorities to the Applicant no. 1 being the lead bank (Ex. AW-1/38);

(xxxix) Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Applicants No. 1 & 9 in supplemental to the Inter Creditor Agreement dated 12.08.2015 (Ex. AW-1/39);

(xl) Confirmation dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 confirming the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 13.10.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 09.12.2015 (Ex. AW-1/40);

(xli) Deed of Adherence dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Applicant no. 9 and the Applicant no. 1, thereby agreeing to adhere to the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015 and Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 13.10.2015 (Ex. AW-1/41);

(xlii) Undertaking cum indemnity dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 333.0 Crore (Ex. AW-1/42);

(xliii) Letter of undertaking dated 09.12.2015 executed by the Defendants no. 2 to 4 being the promoters of the Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/43);

(xliv) The consent letter dated 09.12.2015 for disclosure executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants (Ex. AW-1/44);

(xlv) Undertaking dated 09.12.2015 executed by Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/45);

- (xlvi) Board Resolution dated 16.01.2016 passed by the Board of Directors of the Defendant no.1 wherein it resolved to avail the corporate loan of Rs. 44.0 Crore from Applicants No. 5 & 6 (Ex. AW-1/46);

- (xlvii) Board Resolution dated 16.01.2016 passed by Defendant no. 1 u/s 179 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Ex. AW-1/47);

- (xlviii) Deed of Accession dated 18.01.2016 and with the execution of this deed of accession, common loan agreement dated 12.08.2015 has been amended to cover the corporate loan sanctioned by the Applicants no. 5 & 6, the total loan amount being Rs. 377.0 Crore (Ex. AW-1/48);

- (xlix) Supplemental Deed of Hypothecation dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants no. 1 to 9 for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 377.0 Crore (Ex. AW-1/49);

- (l) Deed of Adherence dated 18.01.2016 to the Deed of Hypothecation executed by the Defendant no. 1 being the Borrower (Ex. AW-1/50);

- (li) Guarantee Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 2 in favour of Applicants no. 1 to 9 (Ex. AW-1/51);

- (lii) Guarantee Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 3 in favour of Applicants no. 1 to 9 (Ex. AW-1/52);

- (liii) Guarantee Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 4 in favour of Applicants no. 1 to 9 (Ex. AW-1/53);

- (liv) Guarantee Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by Defendant no. 5 in favour of Applicants no. 1 to 9 (Ex. AW-1/54);

- (lv) Letter of Authority dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Applicants no. 5 & 6 thereby delegating the authorities to the Applicant no. 1 being the lead bank (Ex. AW-1/55);

- (lvi) Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Applicants No. 1, 5 & 6 in supplemental to the Inter Creditor Agreement dated 12.08.2015 (Ex. AW-1/56);

- (lvii) Confirmation dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendant no. 1 confirming the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 13.10.2015 and supplemental inter creditor agreement dated 09.12.2015 (Ex. AW-1/57);

- (lviii) Deed of Adherence dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Applicants no. 5 & 6 and the Applicant no. 1, thereby agreeing to adhere to the inter creditor agreement dated 12.08.2015, Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 13.10.2015 and Supplemental Inter Creditor Agreement dated 09.12.2015 (Ex. AW-1/58);

- (lix) Undertaking cum indemnity dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks for the enhanced corporate loan of Rs. 377.0 Crore (Ex. AW-1/59);

- (lx) Letter of undertaking dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendants no. 2 to 4 being the promoters of the Defendant no. 1 (Ex. AW-1/60);

- (lxi) The consent letter dated 18.01.2016 for disclosure executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicants (Ex. AW-1/61);

- (lxii) Undertaking dated 18.01.2016 executed by the Defendant no. 1 in favour of the Applicant Banks (Ex. AW-1/62);

- (lxiii) Documents with regard to creation of mortgage by Defendant no. 2 in respect of property of Defendant no. 1 situated at Small Scale Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, G.T. Karnal Road, Opp. Jahangir Puri, Delhi – 110033 viz. documents dated 22.08.2015 for creation of mortgage, affidavit of defendant no. 2 being authorized person of defendant no. 1, Electricity Bill in the name of the Defendant no. 1, title documents and other documents issued by MCD (Ex. AW-1/63 to AW-1/76);

- (lxiv) Documents with regard to creation of mortgage by Defendant no. 5 in respect of property of Defendant no. 5 situated at Tehsil Nahan, Distt. Simour (H.P.) viz. documents dated 12.08.2015 for creation of mortgage, title documents and other documents issued by concerned revenue authority (Ex. AW-1/77 to AW-1/83);

- (lxv) Documents with regard to creation of mortgage by Defendant no. 1 for the property / Flats of Defendant no. 1 situated at NSP Pitampura, New Delhi viz. documents for creation of mortgage, title documents and other documents (Ex. AW-1/85 to AW-1/97);

- (lxvi) Documents with regard to creation of mortgage by Defendant no. 2 for the property of Defendant no. 2 situated at G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi which was mortgaged on 16.12.2009, 25.03.2010, 13.01.2011, 16.06.2011, 08.11.2012 and 28.01.2014 viz. documents for creation of mortgage, title documents and other documents (Ex. AW-1/97A to AW-1/97H);

- (lxvii) Legal Notice dated 15.11.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 1 / SBI (Ex. AW-1/98);

- (lxviii) Legal Notice dated 16.11.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 2 / SBH (Ex. AW-1/99);

- (lxx) Legal Notice dated 02.11.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 3 / SBP (Ex. AW-1/100);

- (lxx) Legal Notice dated 28.09.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 4 / SBBJ (Ex. AW-1/101);

- (lxxi) Legal Notice dated 13.10.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 5 / SBM (Ex. AW-1/102);

- (lxxii) Legal Notice dated 01.12.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 6 / SBT (Ex. AW-1/103);

- (lxxiii) Legal Notice dated 22.12.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 7 / OBC (Ex. AW-1/104);

- (lxxiv) Legal Notice dated 25.05.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 8 / Corp. Bank (Ex. AW-1/105);

- (lxxv) Legal Notice dated 07.11.2016 issued by the Applicant no. 9 / LVB (Ex. AW-1/106);

- (lxxvi) Copy of Balance Sheet dated 12.10.2015 of the Defendant no. 1 wherein it has admitted and acknowledged the liability towards the Applicant Banks (Ex. AW-1/106A);

- (lxxvii) Statement of Account of Applicant no. 1 / SBI (Ex. AW-1/107);

- (lxxviii) Statement of Account of Applicant no. 2 / SBH (now merged with SBI) (Ex. AW-1/108);

- (lxxix) Statement of Account of Applicant no. 3 / SBP (now merged with SBI) (Ex. AW-1/109);

- (lxxx) Statement of Account of Applicant no. 4 / SBBJ (now merged with SBI) (Ex. AW-1/110);

- (lxxxi) Statement of Account of Applicant no. 5 / SBM (now merged with SBI) (Ex. AW-1/111);

- (lxxxii) Statement of Account of Applicant no. 6 / SBT (now merged with SBI) (Ex. AW-1/112);

- (lxxxiii) Statement of Account of Applicant no. 7 / OBC (Ex. AW-1/113);

- (lxxxiv) Statement of Account of Applicant no. 8 / Corp, Bank (Ex. AW-1/114);

- (lxxxv) Statement of Account of Applicant no. 9 / LVB (Ex. AW-1/115);

- (lxxxvi) Sanction Letter dated 14.07.2015 issued by Applicant No. 1 / SBI for Rs. 141.0 Crore (Ex. AW-116);

- (lxxxvii) Sanction Letter dated 07.07.2015 issued by Applicant No. 1 / SBH for Rs. 60.0 Crore (Ex. AW-117);

- (lxxxviii) Sanction Letter dated 25.05.2015 issued by Applicant No. 3 / SBP for Rs. 40.0 Crore (Ex. AW-118);

- (lxxxix) Sanction Letter dated 13.05.2015 issued by Applicant No. 4 / SBBJ for Rs. 21.0 Crore (Ex. AW-119); 

- (xc) Sanction Letter dated 27.10.2015 issued by Applicant No. 5 / SBM for Rs. 32.0 Crore (Ex. AW-120);

- (xci) Sanction Letter dated 13.07.2015 issued by Applicant No. 6 / SBT for Rs. 12.0 Crore (Ex. AW-121);

- (xcii) Sanction Letter dated 03.07.2015 issued by Applicant No. 7 / OBC for Rs. 20.0 Crore (Ex. AW-122);

- (xciii) Sanction Letter dated 23.09.2015 issued by Applicant No. 8 / Corp. Bank for Rs. 44.0 Crore (Ex. AW-123);

- (xciv) Sanction Letter dated 07.10.2015 issued by Applicant No. 9 / LVB for Rs. 7.0 Crore (Ex. AW-124);

- (xcv) General Power of Attorney of the Applicant no. 7 Bank / OBC in favour of Sh. Bobby Tanwar, authorized officer (Ex. AW-1/125);

- (xvi) General Power of Attorney of the Applicant no. 8 Bank / Corp. Bank in favour of Sh. Jagdeesh Prasad, authorized officer (Ex. AW-1/126);

- (xcvii) General Power of Attorney of the Applicant no. 9 Bank / LVB in favour of Sh. Vinay Kumar, authorized officer (Ex. AW-1/127).

7. So far as, Defendants no. 2 to 5 are concerned, they have filed Evidence by way of Affidavit of Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar / Defendant no. 2 who has placed reliance upon following documents:-

- (i) Chart of the unauthorized debits (Ex. DW-2/1);

- (ii) Details of the interest deposited with applicant banks (Ex. DW-2/2);

- (iii) Chart of the adjustment made by the applicant banks without the consent of the deponent (Ex. DW-2/3);

- (iv) Complete comparison of adjustment made by the applicant banks no. 4 & 8 (Ex. DW-2/4);

- (v) Complete details of the misappropriation of the credit facilities done by the applicants no. 1 to 4 & 7 (Ex. DW-2/5);

- (vi) Complete details of the entries done by the applicants no. 5 & 6 (Ex. DW-2/7);

- (vii) Complete chart of interest debited excessively by the applicant banks (Ex. DW-2/8).

8. During the pendency of this OA, it was informed by the Ld. counsel for the Applicant Banks that CIRP proceedings have been initiated qua Defendant no. 1 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi and Resolution Plan has also been approved there.

9. It is also matter of record that during the pendency of this OA, the name of State Bank of India was substituted in place of Applicant Banks no. 2 to 6 i.e. SBH, SBP, SBBJ, SBM and SBT vide Order dated 12.09.2023 passed in IA No. 382/2023.

Similarly, name of Punjab National Bank was substituted in place of Applicant No. 7 / OBC vide Order dated 22.11.2023 passed in IA No. 468/2023.

Further more, name of Union Bank of India was also substituted in place of Applicant No. 8 / Corporation Bank vide Order dated 18.12.2023 passed in IA No. 661/2023.

It is also matter of record that name of DBS Bank was substituted in place of Applicant No. 9 / LVB vide Order dated 22.11.2023 passed in IA No. 465/2023. Subsequently, name of Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. was substituted in place of DBS Bank vide Order dated 04.07.2024 passed in IA No. 196/2024.

10. It is pertinent to mention here that Applicant No. 7 i.e. PNB (after its substitution in place of OBC) filed the Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Kamal Aggarwal, Chief Manager who has placed reliance upon the documents relied by Applicant no. 1 Bank / SBI (Lead Bank).

10.1 Similarly, Applicant No. 8 i.e. Union Bank of India (after its substitution in place of Corp. Bank) also filed the Evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Mineendra S.R. Chief Manager who has placed reliance upon the documents relied by Applicant no. 1 Bank / SBI (Lead Bank).

10.2 Further more, Applicant no. 9 / Omkara Asset Reconstructions Pvt. Ltd. (after its substitution in place of DBS Bank and LVB) filed the Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Kalpesh K. Ojha, Manager who has placed reliance upon the documents relied by Applicant no. 1 Bank / SBI (Lead Bank).

11. Heard Ld. counsels for the Applicant Banks and Defendants no. 2 to 5 as well as perused the entire record.

11.1 It is matter of record that CIRP proceedings have been initiated qua Defendant no. 1 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no final order can be passed qua Defendant no. 1, at this stage.

However, it is directed that Applicant Banks shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendant no. 1 in case CIRP proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case Applicant Banks receive any amount from CIRP proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

11.2 Now I would like to deal with the objections raised by Defendants no. 2 to 5 in their common WS in following paras:-

- (i) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have raised an objection that this OA is legally not maintainable for the specific reason that pursuant to the CAP, which were sanctioned by the Applicant Banks, the Applicant Banks were required to discharge their obligation and it is for the purpose of disbursing the total CAP package for its compliance amounting to Rs. 500.0 Crore which the Applicant Banks defaulted in disbursement of the same and because of which Defendant no. 1 company was unable to do its business operation and activities and thus the documents alleged to have been executed pursuant to the CAP package, does not come into effect and have become non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, the OA is liable to be rejected.

It is matter of record that the Applicants no. 1 to 9 Bank sanctioned and granted the corporate loan of Rs. 377.0 Crore to the Defendant no. 1 which was availed by Defendant no. 1. Further more, Defendants no. 2 to 5 have also not denied the availment of loan facilities but they did not come forward to pay the dues of the Applicant Bank. It is also matter of record that these Defendants never raised such type of objection before filing of this OA at any point of time. This Tribunal is of the view that after availing the loan facilities from the Banks, now the Defendants are trying to skip the liability by making baseless submissions and allegations against the Applicant Banks. Hence, this objection of Defendants no. 2 to 5 does not hold any water and same stands rejected.

- (ii) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 2 to 5 is that the documents referred to in the OA have not been filed and the documents so served are also incomplete. It is stated in the WS that it is well settled law that while filing an OA all the documents referred to or relied upon along with complete statement of account are required to be filed with the OA. It is a mandatory required which has not been fulfilled and as such the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

It is matter of record that the Applicant Banks have already filed the documents in support of their claim and same have also been proved before this Tribunal. Hence, this plea of Defendants no. 2 to 5, being devoid of any merits, is hereby rejected.

- (iii) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have also raised an objection that it is known fact that the Applicant Bank / FI

generally obtain blank documents from the borrowers, those are later on filled up without the consent or knowledge of the borrower, the same is the position in the instant case also. The documents have been filled up later on, thus making material alterations in the documents. Hence, these documents are void ab initio in the eyes of law.

It is matter of record that Defendants no. 2 to 5 have not filed any documentary evidence in support of their contention. They have not denied execution of security documents. Even otherwise, in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held if the defendants have not filed any complaint before higher authorities of the bank or filed any complaint before police authorities.....". Thus, the plea of signing the documents under misrepresentation / blank / unfilled documents / without consent, alleged to be misused by the Applicant Banks, is not maintainable after filing of the suit. Accordingly, this objection of Defendants no. 2 to 5 is hereby rejected.

(iv) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have also taken a plea that the Applicant Bank has charged from the Defendants illegal and excessive rate of interest in violation of RBI guidelines. Moreover, the Applicant Bank has never informed the Defendants with regard to the rates of interest as the Defendants had signed on the blank documents which in fact will not have any 

bearing on the case. Furthermore, correct and complete statement of account of all the accounts of the principal borrower has not been filed. It is also stated that the Statement of Accounts has not been certified in accordance with the relevant provisions under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act. It is also stated that the interest charged by the applicant bank is totally against the contractual rate of interest. They have also filed the chart of unauthorized debits with the WS.

It is matter of record that the Applicant Banks have already filed their respective Statement of Accounts duly certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act in respect of the Loan Accounts, the calculation sheet of the accrued interest of the Loan Accounts and the Statement showing the total outstanding amount (Ex. AW-1/107 to AW-1/115). On the other hand, Defendants no. 2 to 5 have not chosen to file their own statement of accounts. Though, these Defendants have relied upon various charts relating to certain adjustment made by the applicant banks without the consent of the deponent as well as charts wherein details of excess interest debited in the Corporate Loan Account of Defendant no. 1 maintained in SBP, SBT, SBM, SBH, SBBJ, OBC, LVB and Corporation Bank have been given. It is matter of record that all these Charts are having stamp of a Chartered Accountant Company but defendants have not filed any affidavit of the said Chartered Accountant Company in support of the alleged charts prepared by it. Further more, same have been prepared without mentioning the rate of interest as well as proper calculations of the amount(s). Hence, same cannot considered as evidence which can corroborate the said entries / amounts depicted in the charts filed by Defendants no. 2 to 5. Even otherwise, no infirmity is found in the respective Statement of Accounts filed by the Applicant Banks in support of this OA. So far as, plea with regard to blank documents is concerned, same has already been decided in above paras.

In the light of above, this Tribunal is of the view that this objection of Defendants no. 2 to 5 is merely a bald allegation without any substantial documentary evidence, hence, same is liable to be dismissed and same stands dismissed.

(v) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have raised an objection that the OA is barred by Rule 10 of the DRT(Procedure) Rules 1993. It is stated in the WS that applicant banks have themselves admitted the different alleged loans were granted at different point of time and as such the different causes of actions on different alleged loans have arisen.

It is matter of record that all the reliefs claimed in the OA are connected to each other. The present OA is filed by the Applicant Banks for the recovery of their respective dues which are due and payable by the Defendants. The credit facilities sanctioned by the Applicant Banks are always interconnected.

It is also pertinent to mention that the Defendants had admitted their availing the loans from the Applicants. Hence, this objection of Defendants no. 2 to 5 is liable to be rejected and same stands rejected.

- (vi) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 2 to 5 is that the Applicant Bank nos. 6 and 8 does not have any territorial jurisdiction to file the present OA.

It is matter of record that all the addresses of Defendants no. 1 to 5 are of Delhi and Section 19(1) of RDB Act, which governs the territorial jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), states that *an application may be made to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: (a) The bank or financial institution maintains the account in which the debt is outstanding. (b) The defendant resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain. (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.*

In these circumstances, the Tribunal is of the considered view that in pursuance to Section 19(1) (b) of the RDB Act, this Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Original Application (OA). Hence, this objection of Defendants no. 2 to 5 stands rejected.

- (vii) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have further raised an objection that this OA has not been signed by each of the Applicant Banks independently and individually, therefore, this OA is liable to be rejected.

It is matter of record that this OA has been duly filed and verified by the Applicants No. 1 to 9 through their respective authorized officers, hence, this plea of Defendants no. 2 to 5 does not hold any water and same stands rejected accordingly.

- (viii) Next objection raised by Defendants no. 2 to 5 is that this OA filed by the Applicant Banks is barred by limitation.

It is matter of record that the loan facilities were sanctioned by the Applicant Banks in the year 2015 from time to time and various security documents were executed on 12.08.2015, 13.10.2015, 09.12.2015 and 18.01.2016 whereas this OA was filed on 30.03.2017. Even otherwise, the Defendants had admitted and acknowledged the liability through various communications, Balance Sheet and by making the part payment. Hence, it is clear that this OA has been filed well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, this objection of Defendants no. 2 to 5 is hereby rejected.

- (ix) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have also taken a plea that this OA has not been filed through authorized officers of the Applicant Banks.

Record reveals that the Applicant Banks have already filed respective gazette notifications and/or or authority letters issued by them in favour of their respective officers along with the OA. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that this objection of Defendants no. 2 to 5 does not hold any water and stands dismissed accordingly.

- (x) Defendants no. 2 to 5 have raised an objection that there has been inordinate delay on the part of the applicant banks to sanction and disburse the amount and rather the applicant banks have utilized the amount towards the service of interest towards the discounting of bills, towards processing charges, devolvement of the LC payment including the adjustment in the PCFC Account, without the knowledge and consent of the Defendants and thus a total sum of Rs. 241.41 crore has been utilized by the applicant banks and the funds have not been made availed by the applicant banks to the defendant no. 1 company. Further more, these defendants have also denied creation of mortgage over their respective properties. They have stated in the WS that the Applicant Banks and other member banks have not sanctioned and disbursed Rs. 123.0 crore facilities aggregating to Rs. 500.0 crore, therefore, there is no continuation of contract, which entitles the applicant banks to claim that the defendants had signed and executed to create equitable mortgage over their respective properties.

This Tribunal is of the view that once, the Defendants have already admitted sanction of loan, availment of loan facility and execution of security documents, hence, this stage of time, they cannot raise such type of frivolous pleas that too without any concrete evidence. This objection has already been dealt in previous paras as well. Further more, Applicant Banks have already proved their case without any doubt as they have already filed documentary evidence in support of their OA. Hence, this plea of Defendants no. 2 to 5 is hereby rejected.

11.3 On the other hand, the witness of applicant bank / Lead Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents. The evidence filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence lead by the applicant bank and applicant has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the Applicant banks are entitled to recover the entire amount, as claimed in the OA from the Defendants along with pendentelite and future interest @10% p.a. and cost of this OA.

11.4 In this OA, Applicants no. 1 to 9 have prayed to issue recovery certificate against Defendants no. 1 to 5 wherein the Defendant 1 is principal borrower and Defendants no. 2 to 5 are personal / corporate guarantors of Defendant no. 1.

11.5 Since, CIRP proceedings have been initiated qua Defendant no. 1 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no final order can be passed qua Defendant no. 1, at this stage.

11.6 Consequently, TA No. 272/2022 is liable to be allowed in favour of Applicants No. 1 to 9 against Defendants No. 2 to 5 (being Personal / Corporate Guarantors), who are liable to pay the dues of the Applicants no. 1 to 9 along with costs and pendentelite & future interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of present OA, till the date of payment in full.

ORDER

(i) TA No. 272/2022 stands allowed in favour of Applicant Banks no. 1 to 9 and against the Defendants no. 2 to 5 for a sum of Rs. 402,12,11,543.26 (Rupees Four Hundred Two Crore Twelve Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three and Paise Twenty Six only) as per following table :-

<thead> <tr> <th>Applicant Banks</th> <th>Amount Due<br/>(in Rupees)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 1 / SBI<br/>Bank of India (SBI)</td> <td>158,40,79,450.55</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 2 / SBI<br/>(e-SBH)</td> <td>64,64,45,975.04</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 3 / SBI<br/>(e-SBP)</td> <td>30,11,71,918.67</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 4 / SBI<br/>(e-SBBJ)</td> <td>20,81,41,926.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 5 / SBI<br/>(e-SBM)</td> <td>36,29,00,374.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 6 / SBI<br/>(e-SBT)</td> <td>14,11,38,277.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 7 / Punjab<br/>National Bank (e-OBC)</td> <td>21,96,42,594.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 8 / Union<br/>Bank of India (e-Corp Bank)</td> <td>48,30,41,361.00</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Applicant Bank No. 9 /<br/>Omkara Asset Reconstruction<br/>Pvt. Ltd. (e-DBS Bank &amp; e-<br/>LVB)</td> <td>7,46,49,667.00</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

along with pendentelite and future interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing of this OA till realization of the entire dues of the Applicant Banks.

Now Defendants no. 2 to 5 are directed to the aforesaid amount(s) to the Applicant Banks, within 30 days, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of secured assets / mortgaged properties / hypothecated assets / stocks etc. belonging to Defendants no. 2 to 5.

In case of shortfall, same shall be recovered from the movable and immovable assets of Defendants no. 2 to 5 only.

(ii) Since, CIRP proceedings have been initiated qua Defendant no. 1 before Ld. NCLT, Delhi, hence, no final order can be passed qua Defendant no. 1, at this stage.

However, it is directed that Applicant Banks shall be at liberty to revive the OA qua Defendant no. 1 in case CIRP proceedings are quashed / withdrawn in future, in accordance with law.

It is also directed that in case Applicant Banks receive any amount from CIRP proceedings, it shall give due adjustment of the same in the recovery proceedings.

- (iii) It is also directed that the Applicant shall adjust the amount(s), if any, received from the Defendants during the pendency of this case.

- (iv) It is also directed that the sale proceeds of the secured assets shall be distributed between the consortium members, as per inter-se agreements executed amongst them.

- (v) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer-II, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi.

- (vi) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi on 22.10.2026.

- (vii) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

File be closed and consigned to records.

(SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

(Pronounced in open court) Dated: 20.08.2026

This image is a scan of a blank page. The paper has a light beige or cream-colored tint. There are a few very small, faint dark spots scattered across the surface, which appear to be scanning artifacts or minor imperfections in the paper. No text, lines, or other markings are present.